Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Richardson v. Young, 01-7659 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7659 Visitors: 35
Filed: Feb. 21, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7659 DWIGHT RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. YOUNG, Lieutenant; H. BOWERS, Lieutenant; THOMAS MCINTYRE, Sergeant; PHILLIP KRAUSS, Officer; TIMOTHY STICKLEY, Officer; MARK RALEY, Officer; STANLEY RALEY, Officer; D. COWAN, Officer; TROY HAMILTON, Officer; MARSHA BITTNER, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7659 DWIGHT RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. YOUNG, Lieutenant; H. BOWERS, Lieutenant; THOMAS MCINTYRE, Sergeant; PHILLIP KRAUSS, Officer; TIMOTHY STICKLEY, Officer; MARK RALEY, Officer; STANLEY RALEY, Officer; D. COWAN, Officer; TROY HAMILTON, Officer; MARSHA BITTNER, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-00- 2457-L) Submitted: February 6, 2002 Decided: February 21, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwight Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Sharon Stanley Street, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Phillip Melton Andrews, George Eugene Brown, KRAMON & GRAHAM, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dwight Richardson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Richardson v. Young, No. CA-00-2457-L (D. Md. Sept. 4, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer